Jeremy Jones v. Jessica Anne Shelton

Judgment rendered October 2, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 55,959-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

JEREMY JONES Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

JESSICA ANNE SHELTON Defendant-Appellee

*****

Appealed from the
Third Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Lincoln, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 62,147

Honorable Thomas Wynn Rogers, Judge

*****

CUMMINS & FITTS, LLC Counsel for Appellant
By: Daniel C. Cummins
Jessica L. Fitts

RICK L. CANDLER

CARMOUCHE, BOKENFOHR, Counsel for Appellee,
BUCKLE & DAY Jessica Anne Shelton
By: John N. Bokenfohr

KEESHA MASON BORDELON Counsel for Appellee,
State of Louisiana,
Department of Children
and Family Services

*****

Before PITMAN, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

An acrimonious custody dispute between parents over their only child

resulted in the father seeking domiciliary custody and filing multiple

motions for contempt, alleging the mother had repeatedly violated the

court’s custody orders. At trial, the court heard witnesses and examined the

evidence presented by both parties and undertook a careful examination of

the evidence and a thorough application of the La. C.C. art. 134 factors. The

trial court determined that the best interest of the child was to award the

parents joint custody and named the mother as domiciliary parent. The

father appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jeremy Jones (“Jeremy”) and Jessica Shelton (“Jessica”) are the

parents to a six-year-old child, C.J. Jeremy and Jessica were married in

2007 and divorced in 2010. Sometime after their divorce, they reestablished

their relationship, and C.J. was born in July of 2017. It appears the parties

had a cordial relationship from 2017 through the end of 2018. Jeremy was

working out of town and exercised visitation with C.J. during this time.

There was a break in Jeremy and Jessica’s relationship in November of

2018, allegedly due to Jeremy’s relationship at the time with his now wife,

Bailey. Jeremy relocated to North Carolina, and the parties dispute the

amount of time Jeremy visited C.J. Jeremy contends he saw C.J. monthly

from 2018 until the summer of 2020, and Jessica alternatively argues that

Jeremy was essentially absent during this time period. The parties agree that

on May 1, 2019, they entered into an extrajudicial custody agreement, which

named Jessica as the custodial parent and gave Jeremy specific periods of

visitation.

By the summer of 2020, Jeremy, his wife, Bailey, and her three

children returned to Ruston, Louisiana. Jessica lived in Covington,

Louisiana with C.J. Jeremy had custody of C.J. for half of the summer and

began exercising regular and frequent visitation. In December of 2021,

Jeremy, Bailey, and Jeremy’s adult daughter stayed with Jessica and C.J. to

celebrate Christmas. Jeremy took C.J. from Covington, Louisiana back to

Ruston, as he and Jessica had planned. Jeremy left Covington concerned

about C.J.’s wellbeing after the evening spent at Jessica’s house. The

original plan was for Jeremy to return C.J. on January 2, 2022, but that date

was pushed back when Jessica contracted Covid. They agreed to exchange

C.J. on January 7, 2022. In the interim, C.J. contracted Covid, and the

parties agreed to again push the exchange date back one more week. On

January 18, 2022, Jeremy filed a petition in Lincoln Parish for legal custody

of C.J. in response to the concern he had about Jessica’s ability to care for

her after their December visit to her home. He refused to return C.J. to

Jessica’s custody.

Jessica moved from Covington to East Baton Rouge Parish and filed

her own separate petition for custody in that parish. On February 23, 2022,

without notifying Jeremy, Jessica drove from Baton Rouge to Ruston,

checked C.J. out of her school in Ruston, and returned with her to Baton

Rouge. On March 24, 2022, Jessica filed, in the Lincoln Parish proceedings,

exceptions of no right of action, lis pendens, improper venue, and forum non

conveniens in this matter. A hearing was held in Lincoln Parish on April 14,

2

2022, and the trial court denied Jessica’s exceptions. The court ordered that

the custody hearing would take place in Lincoln Parish. That court issued an

interim order, decreeing that C.J. would stay with Jessica contingent on her

returning to school, with Jeremy having custodial periods. The court order

detailed that Jeremy would have custody from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until

Sunday at 5:00 p.m., with the parties meeting halfway at the Alexandria

police department for the exchange. Jeremy would have custody of C.J. the

entire summer. The court ordered that neither party should have overnight

guests of the opposite sex that are not related by blood or affinity while C.J.

was in residence. Finally, the court ordered that the parties would have

unsupervised telephone communications with C.J. when the child is with the

other parent between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.

On July 13, 2022, in the Lincoln Parish proceedings, Jessica filed a

motion for penalties for failure to give notice of relocation pursuant to La.

R.S. 9:355.6, a motion to enforce extrajudicial custody agreement, and

motion to change venue to proper jurisdiction of East Baton Rouge Parish.

On January 25, 2023, Jeremy filed in the Lincoln Parish proceedings a

petition for ex parte emergency custody, arguing that Jessica’s behavior had

been neglectful, irresponsible, reckless, and unpredictable. He described

how Jessica refused to allow telephone calls between himself and C.J. and

an incident when she refused to allow him to see C.J. during his allotted

custody time. He described her multiple failed drug tests, chronic lateness,

and the significant amount of school that C.J. had missed while in her care.

The trial court issued another interim order, dated January 20, 2023,

ordering that Jeremy would have Christmas visitation with C.J., that Jeremy

3

would have every other weekend visitation, that the retrieving parent must

pick up from the other parent’s home, and that Jessica must submit to a ten-

panel urine drug screen. On February 6, 2023, Jessica answered Jeremy’s

petition for ex parte emergency custody and filed a reconventional demand

arguing that she should have sole custody of C.J. Jessica contended that

C.J.’s stepsister was molesting C.J. at Jeremy’s house and that she had

instituted a Department of Child and Family Services (“DCFS”)

investigation into the matter.

By interim order dated March 22, 2023, the trial court dismissed each

of the petitions for emergency custody and ordered that Jeremy shall

continue to have his regular visitation with C.J., as long as she stayed

overnight at her grandparents’ home. It further ordered that C.J. could be

around her stepsibling, just not alone with her, and that Jeremy was entitled

to every other night telephone calls with C.J. for a maximum of 15 minutes

between 6:00 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. Jeremy filed an amended petition for ex

parte emergency custody on May 26, 2023, adding additional exhibits and

updated information from his previous petition.

On July 17, 2023, a bench trial was held in Lincoln parish. Jessica

was the first witness to testify. She testified that she was late to court and

that she was driving on an expired license. In the two months prior to the

trial, Jessica had moved to Prairieville, Louisiana. Jessica is a licensed

master social worker and is currently employed with a behavioral health

company. She had been terminated from two prior jobs, which she denied

was caused by chronic tardiness. She testified that C.J. had recently been

diagnosed with sensory processing disorder and believes that this disorder

4

has made it difficult for C.J. to timely prepare for school in the mornings.

Jessica noted that she has ADHD, which causes her to struggle with

timeliness.

Jessica described how she reported the disclosure made to her by C.J.

regarding the sexual molestation and followed up with the Ruston Police

Department multiple times for updates. She acknowledged that C.J.’s

tardiness during kindergarten negatively affected her school performance but

denied knowing about monthly Zoom meetings for parents or receiving

multiple letters regarding the school’s attendance policy. She testified that

C.J. would be attending public school in Prairieville and would ride the bus

each morning. She anticipated that this, along with therapies for the sensory

processing disorder, would help with tardiness. Jessica acknowledged that

she served a year in federal prison at age 19 after a conviction for misprision

of a felony.

Jessica testified that she has ADHD and lupus and takes prescription

amphetamines and opiates for the treatment of those diseases, which helped

explain the results of what appeared to be failed drug tests. She described

how one time she was out of her hydrocodone and took a friend’s Percocet,

which later showed up on a drug screen. She testified that she always tried

to include Jeremy in parenting decisions, including the doctors’

appointments for C.J. Jessica testified that Jeremy was almost completely

absent for years while he was in North Carolina, and she cared for C.J.

alone. She described her devotion and care for her daughter, who is her only

child.

5

Lieutenant Marchale Canty, with the Ruston Police Department

Criminal Investigation Division, testified that he investigated the abuse

allegation made by C.J. He testified that he closed the investigation after

reviewing the interview with C.J. by the forensic investigator because he

believed that C.J. was being coached regarding the allegations. He noted

that DCFS interviewed all of the Jones children and similarly closed their

investigation. Lt. Canty testified that he had only interviewed Jeremy and

did not interview Jessica or the accused child. He did not have an answer

for the trial court about why he did not question Jessica about coaching her

daughter, if that is what he believed was happening in the situation.

Dr. Aimee Blackham, C.J.’s therapist, testified that C.J. is a

precocious child with a strong, adult vocabulary. She confirmed that DCFS

unsubstantiated the claim made by C.J. and stated that nothing learned in her

sessions with C.J. would trigger her role as a mandatory reporter. Dr.

Blackham testified that C.J. is clearly loyal to Jessica. She testified that C.J.

remarked, “there’s only one home and it’s with biological mom.”

Jeremy was the last witness to testify. He testified that he has three

other biological children in addition to C.J. and has adopted his wife

Bailey’s three children as well. He admitted that he was less present for

C.J.’s early life and that he entrusted Jessica with her primary care. He

admitted to a conviction for domestic abuse battery during a previous

relationship. Jeremy testified that he was disturbed by Jessica’s behavior in

December of 2021, which is why he removed C.J. from her care and filed for

custody. Jeremy stated that the teachers at her school in Ruston said C.J.

6

was behind academically and needed occupational therapy to help with her

grip strength.

He lives with his wife, her three children, his sister-in-law, and her

son. Jeremy contends that C.J. failed kindergarten, although under cross-

examination admitted that he believes this to be true because her contract at

her private school was not renewed. Jeremy described Jessica’s chronic

tardiness for custody exchanges and his concern over her drug use. He

expressed his concerns over C.J.’s absences and tardiness at school and her

medical treatments. Specifically, he noted that in December of 2021, C.J.

was behind on her immunizations and needed to see an optometrist for her

eye problem. He also referred to a document that described C.J. as anorexic.

Upon questioning by the court, he agreed that the document was not issued

by a specific doctor, and he had never sought specific treatment for anorexia

for C.J. He testified that he has attempted to coparent C.J. well with Jessica.

When asked directly by the court what kind of custody he wanted, Jeremy

stated that he wanted domiciliary custody of C.J., with shared custody with

Jessica.

After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court rendered its

judgment in open court. The trial court first stated that it had made an

assessment of the two principal witnesses and found both Jessica and Jeremy

had a tendency to be evasive with their answers. However, the court stated

that “in particular, I found Mr. Jones’ credibility to be lacking in many

respects. I felt that there were contradictions in his testimony and just his

demeanor and his unwillingness to admit facts that were adverse to him.”

The court concluded that Jessica was more candid and credible as a witness.

7

The court then found the following, regarding La. C.C. art. 134 best

interest of the child factors (hereinafter, the “Article 134 factors”):

1. Potential for abuse: The court noted the allegations of abuse of C.J.
but stated that there was no credible evidence to indicate the abuse
occurred. It found that this factor did not favor either parent.

2. Love, affection, and emotional ties between parent and child: The
court stated that this factor favored Jessica because she was C.J.’s
primary caretaker for three and a half years, while Jeremy was on the
East coast. The court noted Dr. Blackham’s testimony about C.J.’s
devotion to her mother.

3. Capacity and disposition of each party to give love, affection, and
spiritual guidance and to continue the education and rearing of the
child: The court found that both parents have the capacity and
disposition to give C.J. love and affection. Neither parent indicated
they would provide spiritual guidance. The court found this factor
favored neither parent but did note its concern about the amount of
tardies C.J. had at her previous school.

4. Capacity and disposition to provide the child with food, clothing,
medical care, and other needs: The court noted the diverging
testimonies of the parties regarding medical care and other material
needs. The court acknowledged the diagnosis of anorexia that had
been made for C.J. but noted that it seemed “sketchy” because the
diagnosis was on an exhibit from a hospital with no doctor’s name.
The court was not provided testimony from a doctor or physician’s
assistant regarding this diagnosis. The court found that Jessica had
not neglected C.J.’s medical needs or failed to provide her with
adequate food.

5. Length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate environment,
and the desirability of maintaining that environment: The court noted
that C.J. was born in 2017 and lived almost exclusively with her
mother until December of 2021, when Jeremy removed C.J. from her
care and refused to return her. The court noted that Jeremy’s original
petition for custody did not include any of the specific allegations
made at trial. The court found this factor favored Jessica.

6. The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed
custodial home, or homes: The court found this factor did not favor
either parent.

7. The moral fitness of each party insofar as it affects the welfare of the
child: The court noted that much was made during trial of Jessica’s
conviction when she was a very young woman. However, the court
found that “the fact that a criminal charge that old was brought to the
attention of the Court was completely unnecessary.” The court noted

8

that Jeremy had a prior conviction for domestic abuse battery. The
court found that this factor did not favor either parent.

8. History of substance abuse, violence, and criminal activity: The court
was concerned about the prescription medications taken by Jessica for
her lupus and ADHD and the potential that those prescriptions could
be abused. It noted its further concern regarding Jessica taking a
friend’s Percocet but found that Jessica’s explanation lessened the
court’s concern. The court found that this factor slightly favored
Jeremy but noted that Jeremy knew about Jessica’s issues before
signing the earlier joint custody agreement and leaving C.J. in her
exclusive care.

9. Mental and physical health of each party: The court noted its earlier
concerns about Jessica’s use of prescription medications but did not
find that this factor favored either party.

10.Home, school, and community history of child: “It is clear that she has
spent almost her entire six years with her mother at her mother’s home
and schools where the mother lives.” This factor favored Jessica.

11.Preference of the child: The court stated it did not know C.J.’s
preference but noted Dr. Blackham’s testimony regarding her loyalty
to her mother.

12.Willingness and ability to facilitate relationship with the other parent:
The court found that Jeremy’s removal of C.J. from Jessica’s care and
Jessica’s chronic tardiness to exchanges cancelled each other out and
determined that this factor did not favor either parent.

13. Distance between the residences: This factor was not of any
significance to the court in making its decision.

14.Responsibility of care and rearing of the child: The court discussed
Jessica being C.J.’s primary caregiver for many years.

For the stated reasons, the trial court granted joint custody of C.J. to

Jessica and Jeremy, with Jessica being named as the domiciliary parent. The

court stated that Jeremy would have every other weekend visitation and if

any parent is more than 15 minutes late to the exchange, it will be delayed

until the next day. The court ordered that Jessica is required to submit to a

12-panel drug test at any time at Jeremy’s request. The court detailed the

alternating schedule for holidays. Jessica was ordered to provide Jeremy

9

with all school records and have C.J. evaluated for her preparedness for the

first grade. The court ordered a date for the parties to return to court to

review C.J.’s school records, including absences and tardies. A written

judgment memorializing the custody arrangements was filed on August 31,

2023. Jeremy appeals that judgment.

DISCUSSION

Jeremy asserts two assignments of error:

First Assignment of Error: The district court erred in granting custody
to Ms. Shelton despite the overwhelming evidence that Ms. Shelton
having primary custody is not in C.J.’s best interest.

Second Assignment of Error: The lower court did not, despite finding
that the underlying acts unquestionably occurred, find Ms. Shelton in
contempt of court and did not award attorney’s fees and/or court costs
to Jeremy Jones.

In his first assignment of error, Jeremy argues that the district court

erred in naming Jessica as the domiciliary parent. Jeremy argues that the

Article 134 factors weigh in his favor as the domiciliary parent.

The paramount consideration in any determination of child custody is

the best interest of the child. La. C.C. art. 131; Tripp v. Gener, 55,654 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 2/28/24), 382 So. 3d 447, writ denied, 24-00396 (La. 5/29/24),

385 So. 3d 701; Abrams v. Turner, 52,922 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/19), 282 So.

3d 304. This determination requires a weighing and balancing of factors

favoring or opposing custody in respective competing parents on the basis of

evidence presented in each particular case. Abrams, supra. The non-

exclusive list of relevant factors to be considered in determining the best

interest of the child found in La. C.C. art. 134 are:

(1) The love, affection, and other emotional ties between each
party and the child.

10

(2) The capacity and disposition of each party to give the child
love, affection, and spiritual guidance and to continue the
education and rearing of the child.

(3) The capacity and disposition of each party to provide the
child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material
needs.

(4) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, adequate
environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity of
that environment.

(5) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or
proposed custodial home or homes.

(6) The moral fitness of each party, insofar as it affects the
welfare of the child.

(7) The mental and physical health of each party.

(8) The home, school, and community history of the child.

(9) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems
the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference.

(10) The willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and
encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child
and the other party.

(11) The distance between the respective residences of the
parties.

(12) The responsibility for the care and rearing of the child
previously exercised by each party.

While the court is not bound to make a mechanical evaluation of all

the statutory factors listed in Article 134, it should decide each case on its

own facts in light of those factors. Nor is the court bound to give more

weight to one factor over another; rather, when determining the best interest

of the child, the factors must be weighed and balanced in view of the

evidence presented. Abrams, supra. The factors are provided as a guide to

the court, and the relative weight given to each factor is left to the discretion

11

of the trial court. Id. The trial court’s finding that joint custody is in the best

interest of the child does not necessarily require an equal sharing of physical

custody. Id. Substantial time rather than strict equality of time is mandated

by the legislative scheme providing for joint custody of children. Id.

The trial court has great discretion in child custody cases based on its

opportunity to better evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Accordingly, the

trial court’s determination of custody issues is afforded great weight and will

not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

As this Court has noted:

In child custody cases where two parents are fervently
competing for custody and domiciliary status of the children,
frequently the trial court must determine the best interest of the
children solely from the testimony of the parents and their
respective relatives or friends. This naturally passionate and
self-interested testimony is rarely objective, leaving it to the
trial court, who is in the best position to view firsthand the
demeanor and tone of the witnesses, to assess the credibility of
witnesses and decide how much weight to give the testimony in
light of the factors of La. C.C. art. 134.

Abrams, supra.

Considering the testimony and evidence available to the trial court, we

do not find its ruling to be an abuse of its broad discretion. The record

reflects that the trial court took great care in analyzing the Article 134

factors in its oral ruling, as detailed above. The trial court heard the

witnesses and reviewed the evidence provided by each party, and it is in the

best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the factors of

Article 134. The record before us clearly indicates the trial court devoted

significant attention to the applicable factors in its consideration of fixing

custody of a young child between two caring parents who could not reach an

amicable agreement themselves.

12

When confronted with two parents living in different locations who

cannot arrive at a mutually agreeable custody arrangement on their own, the

trial court is charged with the difficult task of crafting an appropriate

custody arrangement for their small child. These parties are clearly

acrimonious, and it seems unlikely that any arrangement created by the trial

court would completely satisfy either parent.

Our review of the argument, testimony, and evidence in the record

does not reveal anything that would render the trial court’s ruling an abuse

of discretion. We recognize Jeremy’s arguments regarding Jessica’s

tardiness and potential drug use but note that the trial court clearly addressed

all of the evidence presented to it and included provisions in its written

judgment to account for both issues. Therefore, we conclude that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the parties joint custody and

by naming Jessica as the domiciliary parent. Accordingly, this assignment

of error is without merit.

In his next assignment of error, Jeremy argues that the trial court erred

in not finding Jessica in contempt of court. Jeremy asserts that there was

overwhelming evidence that Jessica was in violation of the trial court’s

orders because she was consistently late, allowed background noise on the

telephone calls with C.J., allowed overnight visitors of the opposite sex

while C.J. was in her home, and consistently failed to submit to court-

ordered drug tests. He argues that she should be found in contempt and he

should be awarded attorney fees.

Constructive contempt of court is defined as “willful disobedience of

any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court.” La.

13

C.C.P. art. 224(2). Willful disobedience of any lawful judgment or order of

the court constitutes a constructive contempt of court. Keene v. Holdsworth,

53,649 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/21), 318 So. 3d 417; Chauvin v. Chauvin,

46,365 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/22/11), 69 So. 3d 1192. Willful disobedience is

defined as an act or failure to act that is done intentionally, knowingly, and

purposefully, without justification. The party seeking contempt must show

that the alleged offender willfully disobeyed a direct order of the court prior

to the contempt rule. Chauvin, supra. A trial court is vested with great

discretion in determining whether a person is to be held in contempt, and its

discretion will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.

Review of the record in the case reveals that the trial court heard and

considered the evidence presented by the parties regarding the issues listed

above by Jeremy. Jessica argued that her tardiness was due to the distance

between her home and Jeremy’s home and her ADHD. She denied having

overnight visitors of the opposite sex and reported to the court that she had

broken up with her boyfriend. She denied intentionally monitoring or

making phone calls between C.J. and Jeremy difficult. Finally, she denied

refusing to submit to drug tests and the court was presented with multiple

drug tests that she had completed. After a review of the record and the

testimony given by the parties, it is clear that the trial court weighed the

testimony carefully and concluded either that Jessica did not “willfully”

violate the court’s orders or that she had a justifiable excuse for her actions.

The evidence presented does not amount to such an egregious violation of

the court’s orders as to reverse the trial court’s abundant discretion.

Accordingly, this assignment of error is likewise without merit.

14

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. Costs of

this appeal are assessed to Jeremy Jones.

AFFIRMED.

15